The party of hawks turns dovish on Syria

Of all the unexpected turns in the Syria debate, one stands out most: The GOP, the party of a muscular national defense, has gone the way of the dove.

A decade after leading the country into Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans have little appetite or energy for a strike aimed at punishing Bashar Assad for allegedly gassing his own people. To the contrary, many of the party’s lawmakers are lining up to sink President Barack Obama’s war authorization vote.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Assad to U.S.: 'Expect everything'

Protest against Bashar Assad

Of the 279 Republicans currently in the House and Senate, 84 were also serving in October 2002. All, with the exception of one, voted to give George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Now, just 10 of those 84 have come out in support of striking Syria. Most of the others have expressed serious reservations or are leaning against voting for the authorization.

That the shift has many possible causes — the enormous toll of American lives and taxpayer dollars exacted by two faraway wars since 2001, the antagonism toward a Democratic president, the very different circumstances in Syria than Iraq — makes it no less remarkable. From the Vietnam War through the Cold War and into Afghanistan and Iraq, an aggressive foreign policy has been as much a part of the Republican Party’s identity as low taxes and opposition to abortion.

To appreciate the ideological upheaval on foreign policy the GOP is in the midst of, look back to when George W. Bush was running for reelection in 2004. Bush was casting himself as America’s fearless defender and castigating Democratic nominee John Kerry as a weak-kneed wobbler. On Capitol Hill last week, it was Kerry, now secretary of state, making the case for military action — and many of his longtime GOP adversaries arguing against it.

The situations in Iraq and Syria are far from parallel. In 2002, there was a strong possibility of an outright invasion and American boots on the ground to topple a Middle East dictator; that isn’t the case now. Obama has said the Syrian operation would be limited in scope, aimed at destroying only chemical weapons installations. Regime change, Obama has reiterated, isn’t the goal.

Still, listening to some Republicans lately, it’s hard to believe that they’re the same crowd who led the charge into Iraq.

In 2002, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe argued in a speech that Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to the U.S. and that Bush’s critics were wrong to focus on the possibility that the country would get bogged down in Iraq, as it did it Vietnam.

“To them I ask, are they more concerned about a war that took place over 30 years ago,” Inhofe said, “or the tragic events that took place on September 11?”

But getting bogged down in Syria is what worries Inhofe — the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee — most.

A strike, he told The Oklahoman last week, “would be defined in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, as a major act of war by the United States. And then we’re going to get drawn into something deeper.”

Or take Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who during the Iraq debate said the U.S. had little choice but to act militarily.

“The reason we must deal with this threat now is both clear, convincing and chilling … this danger will not disappear on its own, and the price we may have to pay today to eliminate this threat will prove modest compared to the price we will have to pay tomorrow,” she said in 2002.

When it comes to Syria, Collins had this to say, according to CBS News: “What if we execute this strike, and then [Assad] decides to use chemical weapons again? Do we strike again? Well, that’s the definition of further entanglement. That’s the definition of our becoming deeply involved in a war.”

In 2002, Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi said Hussein was “dangerous because he is cunning and very calculated … Repeatedly, he pushes the international community to the brink point and then backs down and says — sure, let the weapons inspectors come back. How many times are we going to let him play this game?”

With Syria, Enzi says he hasn’t “seen any reason to enter a war and risk American lives when there is no clearly defined national security interest and allies have not been cultivated.”